Rajasthan Court November 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. the State of Ra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN279
B.R. Arora, J.1. These three appeals relate to the determination of the amount of compensation with respect to the lands of the claimants situated in the municipal limits of the town of Doongarpur, which were acquired by the State of Rajasthan for the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation, Jaipur. As the controversy in these appeals centered on the question of the valuation of the lands under acquisition, which are of same quality and nature and, therefore, all the appeals can be decided by common judgment.2. The State of Rajasthan acquired for the Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation (RIICO) three Bighas of land belonging to Devi Lal and Gordhan Lal, 5 Bighas 16 Biswas of land belonging to Shiv Lal and 36 Bighas 18 Biswas of land belonging to Bhadra Bahu, situated within the municipal limits of Doongarpur. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the State of Rajasthan, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on June 18, ...
Raghuvir Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)184
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of his termination dated 26.6.1981 (Ex. 3).2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was first appointed as Security Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 250-380 on 17.11.1978 with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and he continued in its service until his services were terminated by the order Ex. 3 dated 26.6.1981. The impugned order simply states that the services of the petitioner are no more required and, therefore, his services are brought to an end. Reference has made to Rule 13(ii) of the Raj. State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965. It has also been placed on record that just before the order of termination, a complaint was made against the petitioner by the Corporation on 21.6.1981 on the allegation of theft and on 24.6.81, the petitioner was put under suspension.3. The petitioner contends that in the facts and circumstances of this case, t...
Sarada Panchayat Samiti Iii Gr. Teachers Association Vs. State of Raja ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN421
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition along with the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule Appended to this order involves common questions of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2709/1991: Sarada Panchayat Samiti III Grad Teachers Association v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. are taken into consideration.3. This writ petition has been filed by the Association of IIIrd Grade Teachers, whose members have been mentioned in the annexed Schedule A appended to the writ petition for espousing the common cause of all the Primary School Teachers Grade III working in the Sarada Panchayat Samiti District Udaipur.4. It is alleged that all the members of the Association possessed the minimum requisite qualifications except the training for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III in the present Panchayat Samiti. All these petitioners have prayed that there se...
Radha Devi and ors. Vs. Godawari Devi and 5 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC57; 1991(2)WLN253
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment dated 24th Aug. 1987 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil First Appeal No. 78 of 1979 reversing the judgment and decree dated 25th July 1979 of the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City.2. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Gopal and Sitaram were real brothers. Their father was Kalyan Bux. Ram Gopal died in 1969 leaving behind 3 daughters and two sons. Sita Ram has one son, namely, Govind Behari, respondent No. 6. The case of the plaintiffs is that one house was purchased by Ram Gopal and Sitaram on 30-1-1953. On the death of Ram Gopal the plaintiffs and other sons and daughter became the joint owners of the property with Govind Behari and Sitaram. They alleged that in the event of partition in the joint family property, each one of the two branches, aforesaid, would have been entitled to the half share but the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold away half portion of the h...
Chotey Khan Vs. Vimal Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC529; 1991WLN(UC)262
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 4.1.1991, passed by learned Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1 (North) Kota, by which he allowed the amendment application submitted by the plaintiff non-petitioners in Civil Suit No. 101/82.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that one Madan Lal predecessor of the non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of his personal necessity for starting cloth-business in the disputed shop. Said Sh. Madan Lal died during the pendency of the suit. After his death the non-petitioners submitted an application for amendment of plaint seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity of non-petitioners Vimal Kumar and Rakesh Kumar for running an electric-shop and also on the ground of nuisance. This application for amendment was allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 4.1.1991, which has been challenged by the defendant-petitioner in this revision.3. I h...
Kunj Bihari Lal Sharma Vs. the Raj. High Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC12; 1991(2)WLN56
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. All these three special appeals have been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment/order dt. 12-8-91, passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3154/1989, Babu Lal Yadav v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. As all the three appeals have been filed against one judgment and as such they are decided by a common judgment.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the respondent Babu Lal Yadav after passing competitive test of Stenographer Grade II on 18-9-91, was appointed as Stenographer Gr. II for a period of three months by the District and Sessions Judge, Pali, in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958). An appointment letter was also issued in this connection on 22-1-1982, which is Annexure 1 on the file of the writ petition. It has been mentioned in the appointment letter that the petitioner will ...
Panji @ Panna Ram and ors. Vs. Bhag Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC637; 1991WLN(UC)238
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Civil Judge, Pali dated 5.8.1991 whereby he has allowed the application of the plaintiff dated 26.4.1991 striking out the defence of the petitioner as a whole.2. In this case, the non-petitioner Bhagchand filed a suit on 7.11.1977 against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of default, subletting and personal necessity. The trial court vide its order dated 12.9.90 ordered that defendants are debarred from producing evidence on issue No. 3. But on an application dt. 26.4.91 Under Section 151 filed by the non-petitioner, the Court below has closed the evidence and for others it has observed that they will be decided at final stage of judgment. Thus, he defendant has filed this revision.3. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned lower Court has no jurisdiction to review its earlier order dated 12.9.1990 and to pass the order dt. 5.8.1991. He has also submitted t...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Rohitash Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC560; 1991(2)WLN371
Farooq Hasan, J.1. The State has filed these three criminal appeals after grant of leave to appeal by this court. These appeals arise out of three separate judgments delivered by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, in three different Sessions cases which arose out of three first information reports lodged by three victims, namely, Meena Kumari, Sindoori Bai & Fatima with the allegations that Rohitash Kumar (respondent in these appeals) had committed sexual intercourse forcibly upon their persons while they were residing in the rescue home situated at Bharatpur & maintained by the Social Welfare Department of Rajasthan, in between July 27 and September 27, 1981.2. At joint request of both the parties, since the grounds of acquittal assigned by the trial Court under impugned judgments are similar and identical in favour of the respondent who was accused in the three cases out of which the present appeals arise, these three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. In Sessions C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›